Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2141

control, N = 1061

treatment, N = 1081

p-value2

age

212

51.21 ± 12.94 (23 - 75)

50.47 ± 13.22 (23 - 75)

51.93 ± 12.68 (28 - 73)

0.413

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

214

0.557

f

173 (81%)

84 (79%)

89 (82%)

m

41 (19%)

22 (21%)

19 (18%)

occupation

214

0.847

day_training

5 (2.3%)

2 (1.9%)

3 (2.8%)

full_time

24 (11%)

12 (11%)

12 (11%)

homemaker

30 (14%)

14 (13%)

16 (15%)

other

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.9%)

part_time

40 (19%)

22 (21%)

18 (17%)

retired

51 (24%)

23 (22%)

28 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.7%)

4 (3.8%)

4 (3.7%)

shelter

1 (0.5%)

1 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

student

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.9%)

t_and_e

3 (1.4%)

2 (1.9%)

1 (0.9%)

unemploy

48 (22%)

26 (25%)

22 (20%)

marital

214

0.981

cohabitation

1 (0.5%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.9%)

divore

24 (11%)

13 (12%)

11 (10%)

in_relationship

4 (1.9%)

2 (1.9%)

2 (1.9%)

married

68 (32%)

32 (30%)

36 (33%)

none

99 (46%)

50 (47%)

49 (45%)

seperation

3 (1.4%)

2 (1.9%)

1 (0.9%)

widow

15 (7.0%)

7 (6.6%)

8 (7.4%)

edu

214

0.538

bachelor

47 (22%)

20 (19%)

27 (25%)

diploma

37 (17%)

23 (22%)

14 (13%)

hd_ad

5 (2.3%)

4 (3.8%)

1 (0.9%)

postgraduate

15 (7.0%)

8 (7.5%)

7 (6.5%)

primary

18 (8.4%)

8 (7.5%)

10 (9.3%)

secondary_1_3

25 (12%)

13 (12%)

12 (11%)

secondary_4_5

57 (27%)

26 (25%)

31 (29%)

secondary_6_7

10 (4.7%)

4 (3.8%)

6 (5.6%)

fam_income

214

0.851

10001_12000

7 (3.3%)

2 (1.9%)

5 (4.6%)

12001_14000

11 (5.1%)

4 (3.8%)

7 (6.5%)

14001_16000

10 (4.7%)

4 (3.8%)

6 (5.6%)

16001_18000

5 (2.3%)

3 (2.8%)

2 (1.9%)

18001_20000

10 (4.7%)

7 (6.6%)

3 (2.8%)

20001_above

37 (17%)

21 (20%)

16 (15%)

2001_4000

32 (15%)

15 (14%)

17 (16%)

4001_6000

27 (13%)

12 (11%)

15 (14%)

6001_8000

20 (9.3%)

11 (10%)

9 (8.3%)

8001_10000

17 (7.9%)

9 (8.5%)

8 (7.4%)

below_2000

38 (18%)

18 (17%)

20 (19%)

medication

214

191 (89%)

94 (89%)

97 (90%)

0.789

onset_duration

212

15.40 ± 10.90 (0 - 63)

15.12 ± 10.99 (0 - 56)

15.68 ± 10.86 (0 - 63)

0.709

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

210

35.91 ± 14.59 (-18 - 72)

35.25 ± 12.96 (10 - 67)

36.56 ± 16.06 (-18 - 72)

0.517

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2141

control, N = 1061

treatment, N = 1081

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

214

3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.13 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

0.968

recovery_stage_b

214

17.91 ± 2.82 (8 - 24)

18.05 ± 2.88 (8 - 24)

17.78 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)

0.486

ras_confidence

214

29.77 ± 5.41 (9 - 45)

29.57 ± 5.31 (14 - 42)

29.96 ± 5.52 (9 - 45)

0.593

ras_willingness

214

11.64 ± 2.10 (3 - 15)

11.67 ± 2.00 (5 - 15)

11.61 ± 2.21 (3 - 15)

0.839

ras_goal

214

17.35 ± 3.25 (5 - 25)

17.19 ± 3.17 (7 - 25)

17.51 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.472

ras_reliance

214

13.18 ± 2.87 (4 - 20)

13.03 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.94 (4 - 20)

0.438

ras_domination

214

9.80 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)

10.01 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)

9.59 ± 2.39 (3 - 15)

0.204

symptom

214

30.28 ± 9.28 (14 - 56)

30.28 ± 9.44 (14 - 55)

30.28 ± 9.16 (14 - 56)

0.997

slof_work

214

22.17 ± 4.75 (10 - 30)

22.30 ± 4.42 (12 - 30)

22.05 ± 5.07 (10 - 30)

0.695

slof_relationship

214

25.14 ± 5.75 (9 - 35)

24.64 ± 5.85 (9 - 35)

25.64 ± 5.64 (11 - 35)

0.206

satisfaction

214

20.21 ± 7.02 (5 - 35)

19.54 ± 6.87 (5 - 34)

20.88 ± 7.14 (5 - 35)

0.163

mhc_emotional

214

10.71 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

10.61 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

10.81 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

0.694

mhc_social

214

15.20 ± 5.78 (5 - 30)

14.97 ± 5.84 (5 - 30)

15.43 ± 5.75 (5 - 30)

0.567

mhc_psychological

214

21.77 ± 6.67 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.56 (7 - 36)

21.99 ± 6.81 (6 - 36)

0.628

resilisnce

214

16.56 ± 4.59 (6 - 30)

16.01 ± 4.28 (6 - 30)

17.09 ± 4.83 (6 - 30)

0.084

social_provision

214

13.57 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

13.20 ± 2.69 (5 - 20)

13.94 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)

0.051

els_value_living

214

16.96 ± 3.08 (5 - 25)

16.80 ± 3.02 (6 - 24)

17.12 ± 3.15 (5 - 25)

0.451

els_life_fulfill

214

12.70 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)

12.37 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)

13.03 ± 3.26 (4 - 20)

0.140

els

214

29.66 ± 5.81 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 5.71 (11 - 44)

30.15 ± 5.89 (9 - 45)

0.219

social_connect

214

26.59 ± 9.07 (8 - 48)

26.92 ± 8.89 (8 - 48)

26.28 ± 9.28 (8 - 48)

0.608

shs_agency

214

14.31 ± 4.96 (3 - 24)

13.74 ± 4.79 (3 - 23)

14.88 ± 5.09 (3 - 24)

0.092

shs_pathway

214

15.88 ± 4.13 (3 - 24)

15.42 ± 4.24 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.101

shs

214

30.20 ± 8.71 (6 - 48)

29.15 ± 8.68 (6 - 46)

31.22 ± 8.66 (7 - 48)

0.082

esteem

214

12.69 ± 1.59 (9 - 20)

12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.73 ± 1.56 (10 - 20)

0.712

mlq_search

214

14.76 ± 3.48 (3 - 21)

14.42 ± 3.42 (4 - 21)

15.09 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)

0.161

mlq_presence

214

13.38 ± 4.29 (3 - 21)

13.25 ± 4.09 (3 - 21)

13.52 ± 4.50 (3 - 21)

0.643

mlq

214

28.14 ± 6.93 (6 - 42)

27.67 ± 6.65 (7 - 40)

28.61 ± 7.19 (6 - 42)

0.322

empower

214

19.22 ± 4.38 (6 - 30)

18.89 ± 4.24 (9 - 30)

19.55 ± 4.51 (6 - 30)

0.272

ismi_resistance

214

14.34 ± 2.62 (5 - 20)

14.34 ± 2.36 (6 - 20)

14.33 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)

0.986

ismi_discrimation

213

11.70 ± 3.04 (5 - 20)

11.84 ± 2.92 (5 - 20)

11.56 ± 3.17 (5 - 20)

0.505

Unknown

1

0

1

sss_affective

214

10.30 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.21 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

10.39 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.715

sss_behavior

214

9.94 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

10.06 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

9.82 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.648

sss_cognitive

214

8.63 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

8.49 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

8.77 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

0.587

sss

214

28.87 ± 10.35 (9 - 54)

28.75 ± 10.19 (9 - 54)

28.98 ± 10.56 (9 - 54)

0.873

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.13

0.119

2.90, 3.36

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.000

0.167

-0.328, 0.327

0.998

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.054

0.164

-0.268, 0.376

0.743

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.280

0.242

-0.195, 0.754

0.250

Pseudo R square

0.009

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.279

17.5, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.257

0.393

-1.03, 0.514

0.514

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.136

0.328

-0.778, 0.507

0.679

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.838

0.485

-0.112, 1.79

0.086

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.533

28.5, 30.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.389

0.752

-1.08, 1.86

0.606

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.594

0.527

-0.439, 1.63

0.262

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.79

0.781

0.263, 3.33

0.023

Pseudo R square

0.027

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.203

11.3, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.043

0.286

-0.603, 0.517

0.880

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.010

0.221

-0.444, 0.424

0.964

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.568

0.328

-0.074, 1.21

0.086

Pseudo R square

0.008

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.319

16.6, 17.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.332

0.450

-0.550, 1.21

0.461

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.153

0.334

-0.502, 0.808

0.648

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.854

0.495

-0.116, 1.82

0.087

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.281

12.5, 13.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.315

0.396

-0.461, 1.09

0.427

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.405

0.296

-0.175, 0.984

0.174

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.593

0.438

-0.265, 1.45

0.178

Pseudo R square

0.021

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.0

0.232

9.55, 10.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.413

0.327

-1.05, 0.228

0.208

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.003

0.284

-0.554, 0.560

0.992

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.13

0.420

0.304, 1.95

0.008

Pseudo R square

0.023

symptom

(Intercept)

30.3

0.898

28.5, 32.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.102

1.266

-2.58, 2.38

0.936

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.38

0.774

-2.89, 0.140

0.078

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.45

1.148

-3.70, 0.801

0.209

Pseudo R square

0.013

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.3

0.460

21.4, 23.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.216

0.648

-1.49, 1.05

0.739

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.043

0.457

-0.853, 0.940

0.924

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.619

0.677

-0.709, 1.95

0.363

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.6

0.558

23.5, 25.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.04

0.787

-0.506, 2.58

0.189

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.045

0.578

-1.18, 1.09

0.938

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.633

0.856

-1.05, 2.31

0.461

Pseudo R square

0.012

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.5

0.686

18.2, 20.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.35

0.968

-0.548, 3.25

0.165

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.585

0.656

-0.700, 1.87

0.374

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.29

0.972

-0.614, 3.19

0.187

Pseudo R square

0.022

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.365

9.90, 11.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.216

0.515

-0.792, 1.23

0.675

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.402

0.325

-0.235, 1.04

0.219

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.068

0.482

-0.876, 1.01

0.888

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.0

0.581

13.8, 16.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.473

0.820

-1.13, 2.08

0.564

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.721

0.575

-0.407, 1.85

0.213

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.305

0.852

-1.37, 1.98

0.721

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

0.667

20.2, 22.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.491

0.941

-1.35, 2.34

0.602

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.956

0.640

-0.298, 2.21

0.138

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.101

0.948

-1.76, 1.96

0.915

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.0

0.435

15.2, 16.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

0.613

-0.148, 2.26

0.087

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.590

0.472

-0.334, 1.51

0.213

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.19

0.698

-0.175, 2.56

0.090

Pseudo R square

0.041

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.276

12.7, 13.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.738

0.389

-0.024, 1.50

0.059

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.206

0.294

-0.782, 0.370

0.484

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.510

0.435

-0.342, 1.36

0.243

Pseudo R square

0.026

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.306

16.2, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.334

0.432

-0.512, 1.18

0.440

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.258

0.330

-0.389, 0.905

0.436

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.629

0.489

-0.329, 1.59

0.201

Pseudo R square

0.015

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.314

11.8, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.668

0.443

-0.200, 1.54

0.133

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.282

0.317

-0.339, 0.903

0.375

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.433

0.469

-0.486, 1.35

0.357

Pseudo R square

0.020

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.572

28.0, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.00

0.806

-0.577, 2.58

0.215

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.552

0.565

-0.555, 1.66

0.330

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.01

0.837

-0.626, 2.65

0.228

Pseudo R square

0.020

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

0.891

25.2, 28.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.684

1.257

-3.15, 1.78

0.587

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.021

0.786

-1.56, 1.52

0.979

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.52

1.166

-5.80, -1.23

0.003

Pseudo R square

0.024

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.484

12.8, 14.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.14

0.682

-0.194, 2.48

0.095

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.506

0.445

-0.366, 1.38

0.258

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.612

0.660

-0.681, 1.91

0.355

Pseudo R square

0.023

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.396

14.6, 16.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.938

0.559

-0.157, 2.03

0.094

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.612

0.397

-0.166, 1.39

0.126

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.198

0.588

-0.955, 1.35

0.737

Pseudo R square

0.020

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.841

27.5, 30.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.08

1.186

-0.243, 4.41

0.081

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.11

0.785

-0.431, 2.64

0.161

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.803

1.163

-1.48, 3.08

0.491

Pseudo R square

0.024

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.150

12.4, 12.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.068

0.212

-0.347, 0.483

0.748

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.070

0.206

-0.473, 0.334

0.736

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.091

0.304

-0.504, 0.687

0.764

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.335

13.8, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.708

0.472

-0.217, 1.63

0.135

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.780

0.412

-0.027, 1.59

0.060

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.755

0.608

-1.95, 0.437

0.217

Pseudo R square

0.010

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.412

12.4, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.305

0.581

-0.834, 1.44

0.600

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.796

0.470

-0.125, 1.72

0.093

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.033

0.696

-1.33, 1.40

0.962

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq

(Intercept)

27.7

0.672

26.4, 29.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.01

0.947

-0.843, 2.87

0.286

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.58

0.799

0.013, 3.15

0.050

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.712

1.181

-3.03, 1.60

0.547

Pseudo R square

0.010

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.428

18.0, 19.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.671

0.604

-0.512, 1.85

0.267

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.03

0.443

0.164, 1.90

0.022

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.392

0.657

-1.68, 0.895

0.551

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.248

13.9, 14.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.023

0.349

-0.662, 0.707

0.948

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.338

0.301

-0.252, 0.928

0.264

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.543

0.445

-0.329, 1.42

0.225

Pseudo R square

0.015

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.299

11.3, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.269

0.423

-1.10, 0.560

0.526

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.457

0.373

-1.19, 0.275

0.223

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.443

0.552

-1.52, 0.638

0.423

Pseudo R square

0.015

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.2

0.354

9.51, 10.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.168

0.499

-0.809, 1.15

0.736

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.258

0.330

-0.905, 0.388

0.436

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.03

0.489

-1.99, -0.073

0.037

Pseudo R square

0.014

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.1

0.357

9.36, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.250

0.504

-1.24, 0.738

0.620

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.388

0.341

-1.06, 0.280

0.257

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.407

0.505

-1.40, 0.583

0.422

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.49

0.356

7.79, 9.19

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.253

0.501

-0.730, 1.24

0.614

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.299

0.360

-1.01, 0.407

0.408

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.807

0.533

-1.85, 0.238

0.133

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss

(Intercept)

28.8

1.001

26.8, 30.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.169

1.412

-2.60, 2.94

0.905

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.933

0.879

-2.66, 0.789

0.291

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.13

1.303

-4.68, 0.424

0.105

Pseudo R square

0.010

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.13 (95% CI [2.90, 3.36], t(312) = 26.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.25e-04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33], t(312) = -2.54e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = -3.50e-04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38], t(312) = 0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.75], t(312) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.05 (95% CI [17.50, 18.59], t(312) = 64.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.51], t(312) = -0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.51], t(312) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.79], t(312) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.57 (95% CI [28.52, 30.61], t(312) = 55.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.86], t(312) = 0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.63], t(312) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.79, 95% CI [0.26, 3.33], t(312) = 2.30, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [0.05, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.27, 12.07], t(312) = 57.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.52], t(312) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -9.99e-03, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.42], t(312) = -0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = -4.78e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.21], t(312) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.19 (95% CI [16.56, 17.81], t(312) = 53.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.21], t(312) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.81], t(312) = 0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.82], t(312) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.48, 13.58], t(312) = 46.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.09], t(312) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.98], t(312) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.45], t(312) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.55, 10.46], t(312) = 43.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.23], t(312) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.56], t(312) = 9.87e-03, p = 0.992; Std. beta = 1.17e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [0.30, 1.95], t(312) = 2.68, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.13, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.52, 32.04], t(312) = 33.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.58, 2.38], t(312) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.38, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.14], t(312) = -1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-3.70, 0.80], t(312) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.30 (95% CI [21.40, 23.20], t(312) = 48.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.05], t(312) = -0.33, p = 0.739; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.94], t(312) = 0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = 9.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.95], t(312) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.64 (95% CI [23.55, 25.74], t(312) = 44.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.58], t(312) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.09], t(312) = -0.08, p = 0.938; Std. beta = -7.84e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.31], t(312) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.54 (95% CI [18.19, 20.88], t(312) = 28.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.55, 3.25], t(312) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.87], t(312) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.61, 3.19], t(312) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.90, 11.33], t(312) = 29.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.23], t(312) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.04], t(312) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.01], t(312) = 0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.97 (95% CI [13.83, 16.11], t(312) = 25.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.08], t(312) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.85], t(312) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.37, 1.98], t(312) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.24, 22.85], t(312) = 32.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.34], t(312) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.21], t(312) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.76, 1.96], t(312) = 0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.01 (95% CI [15.16, 16.86], t(312) = 36.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.26], t(312) = 1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.51], t(312) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.18, 2.56], t(312) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.66, 13.74], t(312) = 47.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.50], t(312) = 1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-8.28e-03, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.37], t(312) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.36], t(312) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.80 (95% CI [16.20, 17.40], t(312) = 54.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(312) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.91], t(312) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.59], t(312) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.75, 12.98], t(312) = 39.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.54], t(312) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.90], t(312) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.35], t(312) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.05, 30.29], t(312) = 51.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.58], t(312) = 1.24, p = 0.213; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.66], t(312) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.65], t(312) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.92 (95% CI [25.17, 28.66], t(312) = 30.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-3.15, 1.78], t(312) = -0.54, p = 0.586; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.52], t(312) = -0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = -2.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.52, 95% CI [-5.80, -1.23], t(312) = -3.02, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.62, -0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.79, 14.68], t(312) = 28.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 2.48], t(312) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.38], t(312) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.91], t(312) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.42 (95% CI [14.64, 16.19], t(312) = 38.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.03], t(312) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.39], t(312) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.35], t(312) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.15 (95% CI [27.50, 30.80], t(312) = 34.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 4.41], t(312) = 1.75, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 2.64], t(312) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.48, 3.08], t(312) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.36, 12.95], t(312) = 84.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.48], t(312) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.33], t(312) = -0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.69], t(312) = 0.30, p = 0.763; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.77, 15.08], t(312) = 43.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.63], t(312) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.59], t(312) = 1.89, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-7.86e-03, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.44], t(312) = -1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.44, 14.05], t(312) = 32.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.44], t(312) = 0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.72], t(312) = 1.69, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.40], t(312) = 0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = 7.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.67 (95% CI [26.35, 28.99], t(312) = 41.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.87], t(312) = 1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [0.01, 3.15], t(312) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [1.88e-03, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-3.03, 1.60], t(312) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.89 (95% CI [18.05, 19.73], t(312) = 44.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.85], t(312) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.16, 1.90], t(312) = 2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.04, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.89], t(312) = -0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.34 (95% CI [13.85, 14.83], t(312) = 57.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.71], t(312) = 0.06, p = 0.948; Std. beta = 8.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.93], t(312) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.42], t(312) = 1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.25, 12.43], t(311) = 39.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.56], t(311) = -0.64, p = 0.525; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.27], t(311) = -1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.64], t(311) = -0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.21 (95% CI [9.51, 10.90], t(312) = 28.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.15], t(312) = 0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.39], t(312) = -0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-1.99, -0.07], t(312) = -2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.54, -0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.36, 10.76], t(312) = 28.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.74], t(312) = -0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.28], t(312) = -1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.58], t(312) = -0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.49 (95% CI [7.79, 9.19], t(312) = 23.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.24], t(312) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.41], t(312) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.24], t(312) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.75 (95% CI [26.79, 30.72], t(312) = 28.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.60, 2.94], t(312) = 0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.79], t(312) = -1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.13, 95% CI [-4.68, 0.42], t(312) = -1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,016.645

1,027.931

-505.322

1,010.645

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,018.841

1,041.413

-503.421

1,006.841

3.804

3

0.283

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,534.542

1,545.828

-764.271

1,528.542

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,536.473

1,559.045

-762.236

1,524.473

4.069

3

0.254

ras_confidence

null

3

1,929.796

1,941.083

-961.898

1,923.796

ras_confidence

random

6

1,916.984

1,939.557

-952.492

1,904.984

18.812

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,319.692

1,330.979

-656.846

1,313.692

ras_willingness

random

6

1,320.209

1,342.781

-654.104

1,308.209

5.484

3

0.140

ras_goal

null

3

1,604.575

1,615.861

-799.287

1,598.575

ras_goal

random

6

1,601.388

1,623.960

-794.694

1,589.388

9.187

3

0.027

ras_reliance

null

3

1,527.817

1,539.103

-760.908

1,521.817

ras_reliance

random

6

1,521.294

1,543.866

-754.647

1,509.294

12.523

3

0.006

ras_domination

null

3

1,433.571

1,444.857

-713.785

1,427.571

ras_domination

random

6

1,426.489

1,449.061

-707.244

1,414.489

13.082

3

0.004

symptom

null

3

2,229.748

2,241.034

-1,111.874

2,223.748

symptom

random

6

2,222.038

2,244.610

-1,105.019

2,210.038

13.710

3

0.003

slof_work

null

3

1,819.548

1,830.834

-906.774

1,813.548

slof_work

random

6

1,823.749

1,846.322

-905.875

1,811.749

1.798

3

0.615

slof_relationship

null

3

1,952.200

1,963.486

-973.100

1,946.200

slof_relationship

random

6

1,954.808

1,977.380

-971.404

1,942.808

3.392

3

0.335

satisfaction

null

3

2,075.600

2,086.886

-1,034.800

2,069.600

satisfaction

random

6

2,070.997

2,093.570

-1,029.499

2,058.997

10.602

3

0.014

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,653.347

1,664.633

-823.674

1,647.347

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,655.872

1,678.444

-821.936

1,643.872

3.475

3

0.324

mhc_social

null

3

1,970.904

1,982.190

-982.452

1,964.904

mhc_social

random

6

1,972.278

1,994.850

-980.139

1,960.278

4.626

3

0.201

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,052.491

2,063.777

-1,023.245

2,046.491

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,053.717

2,076.289

-1,020.858

2,041.717

4.774

3

0.189

resilisnce

null

3

1,816.852

1,828.138

-905.426

1,810.852

resilisnce

random

6

1,804.627

1,827.200

-896.314

1,792.627

18.225

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,512.592

1,523.879

-753.296

1,506.592

social_provision

random

6

1,511.719

1,534.291

-749.860

1,499.719

6.873

3

0.076

els_value_living

null

3

1,582.570

1,593.856

-788.285

1,576.570

els_value_living

random

6

1,580.576

1,603.149

-784.288

1,568.576

7.994

3

0.046

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,586.081

1,597.367

-790.041

1,580.081

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,583.845

1,606.417

-785.922

1,571.845

8.236

3

0.041

els

null

3

1,965.013

1,976.299

-979.506

1,959.013

els

random

6

1,961.192

1,983.765

-974.596

1,949.192

9.820

3

0.020

social_connect

null

3

2,233.672

2,244.959

-1,113.836

2,227.672

social_connect

random

6

2,221.898

2,244.470

-1,104.949

2,209.898

17.774

3

0.000

shs_agency

null

3

1,845.376

1,856.663

-919.688

1,839.376

shs_agency

random

6

1,841.254

1,863.827

-914.627

1,829.254

10.122

3

0.018

shs_pathway

null

3

1,733.530

1,744.816

-863.765

1,727.530

shs_pathway

random

6

1,730.525

1,753.098

-859.263

1,718.525

9.005

3

0.029

shs

null

3

2,200.297

2,211.583

-1,097.149

2,194.297

shs

random

6

2,195.699

2,218.271

-1,091.849

2,183.699

10.599

3

0.014

esteem

null

3

1,162.293

1,173.579

-578.146

1,156.293

esteem

random

6

1,167.920

1,190.492

-577.960

1,155.920

0.373

3

0.946

mlq_search

null

3

1,659.130

1,670.416

-826.565

1,653.130

mlq_search

random

6

1,660.341

1,682.914

-824.171

1,648.341

4.788

3

0.188

mlq_presence

null

3

1,779.258

1,790.544

-886.629

1,773.258

mlq_presence

random

6

1,779.543

1,802.115

-883.771

1,767.543

5.715

3

0.126

mlq

null

3

2,097.287

2,108.573

-1,045.644

2,091.287

mlq

random

6

2,097.673

2,120.246

-1,042.837

2,085.673

5.614

3

0.132

empower

null

3

1,788.013

1,799.300

-891.007

1,782.013

empower

random

6

1,786.127

1,808.699

-887.063

1,774.127

7.887

3

0.048

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,469.525

1,480.811

-731.762

1,463.525

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,466.860

1,489.433

-727.430

1,454.860

8.664

3

0.034

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,587.396

1,598.672

-790.698

1,581.396

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,586.144

1,608.697

-787.072

1,574.144

7.252

3

0.064

sss_affective

null

3

1,652.065

1,663.351

-823.032

1,646.065

sss_affective

random

6

1,644.890

1,667.463

-816.445

1,632.890

13.174

3

0.004

sss_behavior

null

3

1,655.759

1,667.045

-824.879

1,649.759

sss_behavior

random

6

1,655.446

1,678.018

-821.723

1,643.446

6.312

3

0.097

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,666.433

1,677.720

-830.217

1,660.433

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,663.816

1,686.388

-825.908

1,651.816

8.618

3

0.035

sss

null

3

2,300.045

2,311.331

-1,147.022

2,294.045

sss

random

6

2,294.850

2,317.423

-1,141.425

2,282.850

11.194

3

0.011

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

106

3.13 ± 1.22

108

3.13 ± 1.22

0.998

0.000

recovery_stage_a

2nd

57

3.19 ± 1.18

-0.057

47

3.47 ± 1.17

-0.353

0.228

-0.295

recovery_stage_b

1st

106

18.05 ± 2.87

108

17.79 ± 2.88

0.514

0.140

recovery_stage_b

2nd

57

17.91 ± 2.64

0.074

47

18.49 ± 2.58

-0.382

0.259

-0.316

ras_confidence

1st

106

29.57 ± 5.49

108

29.95 ± 5.51

0.606

-0.134

ras_confidence

2nd

57

30.16 ± 4.79

-0.204

47

32.34 ± 4.63

-0.821

0.019

-0.750

ras_willingness

1st

106

11.67 ± 2.09

108

11.63 ± 2.09

0.880

0.035

ras_willingness

2nd

57

11.66 ± 1.87

0.008

47

12.18 ± 1.82

-0.453

0.150

-0.426

ras_goal

1st

106

17.19 ± 3.29

108

17.52 ± 3.30

0.461

-0.179

ras_goal

2nd

57

17.34 ± 2.92

-0.082

47

18.53 ± 2.83

-0.543

0.037

-0.640

ras_reliance

1st

106

13.03 ± 2.89

108

13.34 ± 2.90

0.427

-0.192

ras_reliance

2nd

57

13.43 ± 2.57

-0.246

47

14.34 ± 2.50

-0.608

0.069

-0.553

ras_domination

1st

106

10.01 ± 2.39

108

9.60 ± 2.40

0.208

0.258

ras_domination

2nd

57

10.01 ± 2.22

-0.002

47

10.73 ± 2.18

-0.705

0.101

-0.445

symptom

1st

106

30.28 ± 9.24

108

30.18 ± 9.28

0.936

0.024

symptom

2nd

57

28.91 ± 7.80

0.325

47

27.35 ± 7.46

0.667

0.302

0.366

slof_work

1st

106

22.30 ± 4.73

108

22.09 ± 4.75

0.739

0.086

slof_work

2nd

57

22.35 ± 4.14

-0.017

47

22.75 ± 4.00

-0.262

0.616

-0.159

slof_relationship

1st

106

24.64 ± 5.74

108

25.68 ± 5.77

0.189

-0.323

slof_relationship

2nd

57

24.60 ± 5.08

0.014

47

26.27 ± 4.93

-0.183

0.091

-0.521

satisfaction

1st

106

19.54 ± 7.06

108

20.89 ± 7.09

0.165

-0.374

satisfaction

2nd

57

20.12 ± 6.12

-0.162

47

22.76 ± 5.89

-0.519

0.026

-0.731

mhc_emotional

1st

106

10.61 ± 3.76

108

10.83 ± 3.77

0.675

-0.121

mhc_emotional

2nd

57

11.01 ± 3.20

-0.225

47

11.30 ± 3.06

-0.264

0.644

-0.160

mhc_social

1st

106

14.97 ± 5.99

108

15.44 ± 6.01

0.564

-0.149

mhc_social

2nd

57

15.69 ± 5.23

-0.227

47

16.47 ± 5.05

-0.323

0.442

-0.245

mhc_psychological

1st

106

21.55 ± 6.87

108

22.04 ± 6.90

0.602

-0.139

mhc_psychological

2nd

57

22.50 ± 5.95

-0.271

47

23.10 ± 5.73

-0.300

0.607

-0.168

resilisnce

1st

106

16.01 ± 4.48

108

17.06 ± 4.49

0.087

-0.402

resilisnce

2nd

57

16.60 ± 4.01

-0.225

47

18.85 ± 3.91

-0.679

0.004

-0.856

social_provision

1st

106

13.20 ± 2.84

108

13.94 ± 2.85

0.059

-0.452

social_provision

2nd

57

12.99 ± 2.53

0.126

47

14.24 ± 2.46

-0.186

0.012

-0.765

els_value_living

1st

106

16.80 ± 3.15

108

17.14 ± 3.17

0.440

-0.182

els_value_living

2nd

57

17.06 ± 2.82

-0.141

47

18.02 ± 2.74

-0.483

0.080

-0.525

els_life_fulfill

1st

106

12.37 ± 3.23

108

13.04 ± 3.24

0.133

-0.381

els_life_fulfill

2nd

57

12.65 ± 2.84

-0.161

47

13.75 ± 2.75

-0.408

0.046

-0.629

els

1st

106

29.17 ± 5.89

108

30.17 ± 5.91

0.215

-0.322

els

2nd

57

29.72 ± 5.14

-0.177

47

31.74 ± 4.96

-0.502

0.043

-0.647

social_connect

1st

106

26.92 ± 9.18

108

26.23 ± 9.21

0.587

0.159

social_connect

2nd

57

26.89 ± 7.79

0.005

47

22.69 ± 7.46

0.822

0.005

0.976

shs_agency

1st

106

13.74 ± 4.98

108

14.88 ± 5.00

0.095

-0.467

shs_agency

2nd

57

14.24 ± 4.27

-0.207

47

16.00 ± 4.10

-0.457

0.034

-0.718

shs_pathway

1st

106

15.42 ± 4.08

108

16.35 ± 4.09

0.094

-0.427

shs_pathway

2nd

57

16.03 ± 3.57

-0.279

47

17.16 ± 3.46

-0.369

0.102

-0.518

shs

1st

106

29.15 ± 8.66

108

31.23 ± 8.69

0.081

-0.482

shs

2nd

57

30.26 ± 7.45

-0.257

47

33.14 ± 7.16

-0.443

0.046

-0.668

esteem

1st

106

12.65 ± 1.55

108

12.72 ± 1.55

0.748

-0.058

esteem

2nd

57

12.58 ± 1.49

0.059

47

12.74 ± 1.48

-0.018

0.585

-0.135

mlq_search

1st

106

14.42 ± 3.45

108

15.13 ± 3.46

0.135

-0.305

mlq_search

2nd

57

15.20 ± 3.21

-0.336

47

15.16 ± 3.15

-0.011

0.940

0.020

mlq_presence

1st

106

13.25 ± 4.24

108

13.55 ± 4.26

0.600

-0.116

mlq_presence

2nd

57

14.04 ± 3.86

-0.303

47

14.38 ± 3.77

-0.315

0.653

-0.129

mlq

1st

106

27.67 ± 6.92

108

28.68 ± 6.94

0.286

-0.226

mlq

2nd

57

29.25 ± 6.37

-0.352

47

29.55 ± 6.25

-0.193

0.809

-0.067

empower

1st

106

18.89 ± 4.41

108

19.56 ± 4.42

0.267

-0.273

empower

2nd

57

19.92 ± 3.90

-0.420

47

20.20 ± 3.78

-0.261

0.712

-0.114

ismi_resistance

1st

106

14.34 ± 2.55

108

14.36 ± 2.56

0.948

-0.013

ismi_resistance

2nd

57

14.68 ± 2.37

-0.199

47

15.24 ± 2.32

-0.519

0.222

-0.333

ismi_discrimation

1st

106

11.84 ± 3.08

107

11.57 ± 3.09

0.526

0.127

ismi_discrimation

2nd

57

11.38 ± 2.88

0.217

47

10.67 ± 2.84

0.426

0.207

0.337

sss_affective

1st

106

10.21 ± 3.64

108

10.38 ± 3.66

0.736

-0.093

sss_affective

2nd

57

9.95 ± 3.13

0.142

47

9.09 ± 3.01

0.711

0.154

0.476

sss_behavior

1st

106

10.06 ± 3.68

108

9.81 ± 3.69

0.620

0.133

sss_behavior

2nd

57

9.67 ± 3.18

0.207

47

9.01 ± 3.07

0.424

0.286

0.350

sss_cognitive

1st

106

8.49 ± 3.66

108

8.74 ± 3.67

0.614

-0.127

sss_cognitive

2nd

57

8.19 ± 3.22

0.150

47

7.64 ± 3.11

0.556

0.374

0.278

sss

1st

106

28.75 ± 10.31

108

28.92 ± 10.35

0.905

-0.035

sss

2nd

57

27.82 ± 8.74

0.194

47

25.86 ± 8.36

0.636

0.244

0.407

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(284.81) = -0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.33)

2st

t(308.00) = 1.21, p = 0.228, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.73)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(260.31) = -0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.52)

2st

t(310.00) = 1.13, p = 0.259, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.59)

ras_confidence

1st

t(243.48) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.87)

2st

t(313.87) = 2.35, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.36 to 4.01)

ras_willingness

1st

t(252.26) = -0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.52)

2st

t(312.03) = 1.44, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.24)

ras_goal

1st

t(248.24) = 0.74, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.22)

2st

t(313.03) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.07 to 2.30)

ras_reliance

1st

t(248.71) = 0.80, p = 0.427, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.10)

2st

t(312.92) = 1.82, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.89)

ras_domination

1st

t(265.57) = -1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.23)

2st

t(308.95) = 1.65, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.57)

symptom

1st

t(234.61) = -0.08, p = 0.936, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.60 to 2.39)

2st

t(312.30) = -1.03, p = 0.302, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-4.50 to 1.40)

slof_work

1st

t(243.93) = -0.33, p = 0.739, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.06)

2st

t(313.82) = 0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.17 to 1.98)

slof_relationship

1st

t(247.33) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.59)

2st

t(313.23) = 1.69, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.27 to 3.61)

satisfaction

1st

t(240.93) = 1.39, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.56 to 3.26)

2st

t(314.00) = 2.23, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.32 to 4.96)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(236.42) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.23)

2st

t(313.18) = 0.46, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.50)

mhc_social

1st

t(243.53) = 0.58, p = 0.564, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.09)

2st

t(313.87) = 0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.21 to 2.77)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(241.19) = 0.52, p = 0.602, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.34)

2st

t(314.00) = 0.52, p = 0.607, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.67 to 2.85)

resilisnce

1st

t(251.48) = 1.72, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.26)

2st

t(312.23) = 2.88, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (0.71 to 3.78)

social_provision

1st

t(249.81) = 1.90, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.50)

2st

t(312.66) = 2.54, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.28 to 2.22)

els_value_living

1st

t(250.88) = 0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.19)

2st

t(312.39) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.04)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(245.08) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.54)

2st

t(313.66) = 2.00, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.02 to 2.18)

els

1st

t(243.41) = 1.24, p = 0.215, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.59)

2st

t(313.88) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.06 to 3.97)

social_connect

1st

t(235.85) = -0.54, p = 0.587, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.16 to 1.79)

2st

t(312.95) = -2.80, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-7.15 to -1.25)

shs_agency

1st

t(238.44) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.20 to 2.49)

2st

t(313.75) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.37)

shs_pathway

1st

t(244.53) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.04)

2st

t(313.74) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.50)

shs

1st

t(239.34) = 1.75, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.25 to 4.42)

2st

t(313.89) = 2.01, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.06 to 5.71)

esteem

1st

t(282.92) = 0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.48)

2st

t(307.89) = 0.55, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.73)

mlq_search

1st

t(266.17) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.64)

2st

t(308.85) = -0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.19)

mlq_presence

1st

t(256.85) = 0.53, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.45)

2st

t(310.83) = 0.45, p = 0.653, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.82)

mlq

1st

t(261.81) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.88)

2st

t(309.67) = 0.24, p = 0.809, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.75)

empower

1st

t(247.25) = 1.11, p = 0.267, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.86)

2st

t(313.25) = 0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.77)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(264.59) = 0.06, p = 0.948, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.71)

2st

t(309.12) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.47)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(267.14) = -0.64, p = 0.526, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.56)

2st

t(307.91) = -1.26, p = 0.207, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.82 to 0.40)

sss_affective

1st

t(239.30) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.15)

2st

t(313.89) = -1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.33)

sss_behavior

1st

t(240.83) = -0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.74)

2st

t(314.00) = -1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.55)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(245.38) = 0.50, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.24)

2st

t(313.61) = -0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.67)

sss

1st

t(235.60) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.61 to 2.95)

2st

t(312.83) = -1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-5.27 to 1.35)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(153.25) = 1.87, p = 0.127, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.69)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(133.71) = 1.96, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.41)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(122.41) = 4.14, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (1.25 to 3.53)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(128.16) = 2.30, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.04)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(125.49) = 2.75, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.28 to 1.73)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(125.80) = 3.08, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.36 to 1.64)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(137.52) = 3.64, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.52 to 1.74)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(116.87) = -3.33, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.51 to -1.14)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(122.70) = 1.32, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.65)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(124.90) = 0.93, p = 0.710, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.84)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(120.79) = 2.61, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.45 to 3.30)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(117.97) = 1.32, p = 0.380, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.18)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(122.45) = 1.63, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.27)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(120.96) = 1.51, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.44)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(127.64) = 3.46, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.76 to 2.80)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(126.52) = 0.95, p = 0.692, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.94)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(127.23) = 2.46, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.60)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(123.44) = 2.06, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.40)

els

1st vs 2st

t(122.36) = 2.53, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.34 to 2.79)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(117.63) = -4.11, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-5.25 to -1.83)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(119.23) = 2.29, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.15 to 2.08)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(123.08) = 1.86, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.67)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(119.79) = 2.22, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.21 to 3.61)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(151.54) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.46)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(137.96) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.91)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(131.29) = 1.61, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.85)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(134.78) = 0.99, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.59)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(124.84) = 1.32, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.60)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(136.79) = 2.68, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.53)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(139.07) = -2.21, p = 0.057, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.71 to -0.09)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(119.77) = -3.57, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-2.01 to -0.57)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(120.73) = -2.13, p = 0.071, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.53 to -0.06)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(123.63) = -2.81, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.89 to -0.33)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(117.47) = -3.18, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-4.97 to -1.15)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(142.60) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.38)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(127.55) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.51)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(118.67) = 1.12, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.64)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(123.21) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.43)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(121.10) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.82)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(121.35) = 1.36, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.99)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(130.50) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.57)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(114.26) = -1.78, p = 0.157, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.91 to 0.16)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(118.90) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.95)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(120.64) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.10)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(117.39) = 0.89, p = 0.749, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.89)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(115.14) = 1.23, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.05)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(118.70) = 1.25, p = 0.427, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.86)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(117.52) = 1.49, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.22)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(122.79) = 1.25, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.53)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(121.92) = -0.70, p = 0.970, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.38)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(122.48) = 0.78, p = 0.873, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.91)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(119.49) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.91)

els

1st vs 2st

t(118.64) = 0.98, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.67)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(114.86) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.58 to 1.54)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(116.14) = 1.14, p = 0.517, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.39)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(119.20) = 1.54, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.40)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(116.59) = 1.41, p = 0.323, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.66)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(141.29) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.34)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(130.85) = 1.89, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.60)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(125.66) = 1.69, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.73)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(128.38) = 1.97, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.01 to 3.17)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(120.59) = 2.32, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.91)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(129.94) = 1.12, p = 0.530, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.94)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(131.95) = -1.22, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.28)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(116.57) = -0.78, p = 0.873, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.91 to 0.40)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(117.34) = -1.14, p = 0.516, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.29)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(119.64) = -0.83, p = 0.817, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.41)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(114.74) = -1.06, p = 0.582, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.81)

Plot

Clinical significance